If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?".

Thanks. I'll take that as the closest thing I am ever likely to get from you as an apology for your ridiculous "liar liar" tirade.So the validity (or otherwise) of subjective evidence is rather fundamental to your anti-atheist arguments. What a shock! I must be psychic to have realised that before you did. Or maybe you weren't being entirely truthful in your flashing scrolling campaign of denial?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quote box

All your stated criteria for "High Confidence" on your much vaunted "Scale of Belief" have been met by the human invention argument. You can equivocate as much as you like. You can talk about "proof" as much as you like. But it won't change this fact. You used to be a faith based deist disclaiming the need for logic in matters of belief. Now you are a wannabe Vulcan agnostic with opinions. What happened? More equivocation? And I have noted that you still cannot prove that the Easter Bunny, jolly magical Santa, the Tooth Fairy or a whole host of other equally disprovable irrefutable concepts "do not, or cannot, exist". But you are presumably not requiring that we be rationally agnostic towards the actual existence of these concepts? Thus you have no point worth making. I don't need to prove anything. This is about evidence. Not pure logic. As such we can only talk in terms of probability and likelihood. Until you stop translating evidence based positions into statements of logical certitude it is you who is destined to persevere with fallacious and irrelevant counter-arguments. With regard to your well refuted position on the validity of "subjective evidence":1) You remain blatantly unable to confront the substantial problems with having any confidence in any form of Immaterial "Evidence".2) This is just another god of the gaps argument. As has been discussed many times before.3) Your assumption that religious experiences are due to the actual existence of gods amounts to nothing more than the circular argument of citing belief as evidence upon which to justify belief.The existence of gods is but one of the possible causes for humans having religious experiences. One of the unevidenced possible causes. Along with telepathic dogs infiltrating our brains, fluctuations in the matrix designed to control rebellious minds, magic moonbeams, thetan plots to take over the Earth and every single one of the other conceivable possible causes that could explain subjective human experiences believed to be caused by gods. All possibilities which have absolutely no factual basis whatsoever. Do you agree that these are all equally objectively unevidenced? And thus equally unlikely? Or are you special pleading the possibility of gods as superior in any way as an answer to the question of why humans believe in gods? If so on what grounds? Be specific.On the other hand we could consider the evidenced possibility of the commonality of human psychology. We could seek a naturalistic answer as to why people have such experiences. We could see your entire "subjective evidence" argument as just yet another gap in which you have unjustifiably inserted your god. Given the unmitigated failure of the supernatural explanatory model that would be the rational course of action. Would it not?Your immaterial subjective evidence arguments have been well and widely refuted in previous threads. The fact you have had to raise them from the dead again despite previously stating that these arguments have "NOTHING to do with deities" just highlights the ever increasing paucity of your position.Enjoy.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : Spelling and formatting

If it convinces you to the point of having no choice why do you need to go round claiming that it is "evidenced" in some way and demanding that others be rationally agnostic about it?

After watching RAZD & Straggler piling up argument after argument, Jon astutely observes: It's about time someone finally pointed this out.Thanks, Jon.It's like something from Goedel, Escher & Bach:Achilles: Everytime I add up the 2nd row, I get X.
Tortoise: What! Everytime I add up the 3rd column I get Y!
Achilles: Now look, my friend - here is how I do it...adding across the elements of the 2nd....you see? It's always X!!
Tortoise: But see, it's you who must be confused!! When I sum up the 3rd column, the only logical answer is Y!!!

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

So which parts do you think RAZD and I agree on...?Which parts do we disagree on.....? The nature of evidence? The nature of faith? The entirety of human history and knowledge? nothing that significant then?Be specific. Because I am genuinely intrigued as to a third party perspective on this.

Hi Mod, Straggler's statement is evidence that he actually uses the lack of evidence of god/s to support his belief about the non-actuality (absence) of god/s. It just amuses me that he makes this claim when he started the whole nonsense over that not being a valid description of some atheists. I agree that there is no empirical objective evidence that god/s actually exist, ANDthat there is no empirical objective evidence that god/s actually do not exist. I agree that if there is no contradictory empirical objective evidence, one can keep an open mind but be skeptical about claims without empirical objective evidence that they are true. One should not believe it out of hand, but one can have an open mind on the issue and be skeptical, just as one can have an open mind and be skeptical on the issue the non-existence of god/s, because there is no contradictory empirical objective evidence.Do you agree that there is no empirical objective evidence that shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist?Do you agree that this means one should not believe in a claim for the non-existence of god/s? Based on reason alone. This means limited to logically valid conclusions, not opinion. I've answered this in Message 296 as well:

quote:

---

I assume that god/s are currently unknown, that the issue of whether they can be known, in part or in whole or not at all, is currently unknown, and I assume that what we see in the universe could be the result of god/s creation, either directly (by making it so) or indirectly (by establishing the natural laws that cause the result). I assume that my personal belief in the existence of god/s is just personal opinion until such time as there is empirical objective evidence for or against the existence of god/s. If this belief is "based solely on reason" then I am bound by limits of logic and the limits of empirical objective evidence, which is why I necessarily end up as an agnostic theist "3" position...

---

Enjoy.

---

No Straggler, No. What you have done once again is quote mine and misrepresent. This is especially ludicrous behavior after your recent tirade about partial quotes: LOL.For reference, the full response -- and the correct text responded to -- was:

quote:

---

You appear here to be saying that the defining evidential difference between those irrefutable concepts that you have concluded are the product of human invention (e.g. magical Santa, Easter Bunny, etc. etc.) and the gods/deities that you are requiring us to be agnostic about is subjective evidence? But surely not.

Correct. I do not need them to justify belief that god/s are possible.

---

(bold for emphasis)I do not need to use subjective experiences to justify belief that god/s are possible, so you are indeed correct when you say: Indeed, most surely not.If you are confused by your own sentence structure, then I don't know how to help you. And yet here you are, repeating this very same behavior again, the precise behavior that led directly to the "liar liar" posts -- because you were making false representations then about what I said and failed to justify it in any way -- just as you do here.When you misrepresent what someone says to mean the opposite of what they mean you are telling a lie.This is sad Straggler, sad to see, sad, but not surprising. Presumably, when (if) you review the statements you will see your error and realize that your assumptions were wrong then, just as they are wrong now.Not psychic, so much as psychotic, perhaps pathologically unable to understand.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : as

---

Once more Straggler completely misses the point. It is a fact that some people make some things up some of the time. We know this is so, because some people admit making up some concepts. It does not matter that premise 2 is true, level III fact, because the logical structure is flawed and the conclusion does not follow.That it is a fact that "some people make some things up some of the time" does not mean that all concepts of god/s are necessarily made up. That is the logical fallacy of using part for the whole, assuming the consequent, etc etc etc."Argument 1" is no more valid than "Argument 2" from the same posts using the very same second premise: It is ALSO a level III fact that not all concepts are made up, so we can replace the second premise with the equally valid level III factual statement that "not everything people say\write\etc is made up" and get: This is a valid conclusion from the premises given, premises that are level III facts.Therefore, until there is evidence that contradicts the possibility, it is possible that one or more concepts of god/s are indeed not made up but based on actual reality.Therefore, until such time as there is contradictory evidence that shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, it is logical and rational to believe that god/s are possible. No, just more misunderstanding.The reason I have a personal opinion about the existence of god/s is from that original faith, faith that is indifferent to logic and reason, faith that is necessarily subjective, faith that is necessarily personal opinion until such time as there is objective empirical evidence. Not surprisingly I once again notice that absolute and complete absence of any substantiation for this unfounded claim.Presumably you mean the list of fantasy refutations that you keep posting that are laced with logical fallacies and misrepresentations. Of course the fact that I've never made posts about "immaterial subjective evidence" MIGHT be a clue about the veracity of your latest fantasy claim. You really need to keep track of what I actually post versus the lies you tell about what I post.Thanks for the laugh.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : liesEdited by RAZD, : and truth

---

This thread seems to have run its course of constructive discussion.Therefore, I am closing this thread.If anyone feels the thread should be reopened, please make your case in the "Thread Reopen Request" thread.Thanks
AdminPD